Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board backs zoning text amendments to consolidate use tables and add single‑family standards
Summary
The board unanimously approved two zoning text-change referrals: (1) moving use regulations into Appendix A land-use schedule to improve usability and consistency, and (2) consolidating single‑family district rules into one chapter and adding floor‑area‑ratio and lot‑coverage standards, with staff noting further work may be needed on permeability credits.
On March 11 the Stamford Planning Board approved two zoning-text referrals that staff said are intended to make the zoning code more usable and to add dimensional controls for single-family areas.
The first amendment (ZB 225-06) moves use regulations now scattered across chapter text into Appendix A (the land-use schedule), consolidating commercial and mixed-use district entries so residents and applicants can compare permitted uses in one table. Staff said the printed table is large (tabloid-size) and will remain available electronically with spreadsheet layers to make it easier to use.
The second amendment (ZB 225-07) consolidates single-family district regulations into a single chapter and proposes two substantive additions: a floor-area-ratio (FAR) standard and a maximum lot-coverage rule to limit overall paved and built area (patios, driveways, walkways) in single-family zones. Staff explained FAR is meant to cap building volume in addition to existing setback and building-coverage controls; the administration derived the proposed FARs to reflect typical buildable amounts in each district and said the limits would be generous for ordinary single-family use.
Board members raised questions about how permeable paving would be treated in lot-coverage calculations and whether FAR adds unnecessary complexity. Staff responded that permeable pavers currently count toward lot coverage and that engineering staff are cautious about granting credits because maintenance requirements vary; they offered to revisit technical credits as technology or maintenance provisions evolve. One member requested anonymized examples to illustrate properties that motivated the FAR limits; staff agreed to follow up.
Both text changes passed on unanimous votes in the meeting record. The amendments will proceed to the zoning board for public hearings and further review.
